公司選擇詢價圈購與公開申購之決定因素與影響：倫敦證交所主板與AIM之實證

• Main Authors: Ching-hsiang Hsieh, 謝慶祥
• Other Authors: Tai Ma
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2008
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/5xnwmv

碩士 === 國立中山大學 === 財務管理學系研究所 === 96 === Since London Stock Exchange introduced bookbuilding in IPO in 1992, more and more countries also allowed companies to go IPO through bookbuilding or bookbuilding hybrid with other IPO mechanism. About 90% of the countries in the world allow bookbuilding, and it has formed a potential trend. There were about 60% of IPOs using bookbuilding in LSE, and almost 90% of the investors in the market were institutional investors. Under the main board is Alternative Investment Market (AIM) without any listing criteria, companies are qualified for listing just by designating a nominated advisor (NOMAD), and about 40%-50% of the investors on AIM are institutional investors. The growth of AIM were so amazing in recent years, especially, the number of IPOs has maintained above 150 issues per year during past five years, and 90% of them were through bookbuiling. The main purpose of this study is to figure out why companies tend to use bookbuilding. From the evidence of LSE, we found that the smaller company or issue is, the more possible that they would choose bookbuilding. When the market is less liquid, bookbuilding would likely be used, and stocks that sold through bookbuilding are usually less liquid. Companies listed on AIM are usually small and mediun ones, and choosing bookbuiling sometimes signals a good sign about the quality of a company for getting through with the examination from institutional investors. In addition, companies can designated a NOMAD as an underwriter, too. From the view point of maximizing underwriting profit and maintaining the relationship with institutional clients, the underwriter would also tend to use bookbuilding. Besides, we proposed that after-market cumulative abnormal return would be one of the reasons that company chooses bookbuilding, and we found evidence showing after-market cumulative abnormal return under bookbuilding is higher than under offer for subscription.